Summary: Ms C complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing situation. Ms C says there was a delay in receiving accommodation and she had to sleep in her car for two nights. We have found fault by the Council in its failure to provide a homelessness decision with associated review rights but consider the agreed action of an apology, £300 and review of its procedures provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms C, complains the Council refused to accept a homeless application between June and October 2019. Ms C also says the Council wrongly told her it could not treat her as a victim of domestic violence as the police were not involved, she was not in priority need as her HIV status was not a disability and she did not have a local connection.
2. Ms C says because of the Council’s fault there was a delay in receiving accommodation and she had to sleep in her car for two nights.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the papers provided by Ms C and discussed the complaint with her. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Ms C. I have explained my draft decision to Ms C and the Council and provided an opportunity for comment.

Back to top

What I found

Background and legislation

6. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:

• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. [Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)]

7. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 
8. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
9. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
10. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
11. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. A person may be in priority need if they are:

• pregnant or have dependent children
• a victim of domestic abuse*
• aged 16 or 17
• former care leavers aged 18 to 20
• vulnerable, for example, for medical reasons.

* Before 5 July 2021, being a victim of domestic violence was not, in itself, sufficient: the person also had to demonstrate they were vulnerable to be considered in priority need.

13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
14. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

Key events

15. Ms C contacted the Council about her housing situation in June 2019. The Council completed a homeless assessment with Ms C on 21 June. Ms C was staying with a friend at this time. Ms C explained she had left London due to domestic abuse from her family and she felt unsafe returning. Ms C further explained her friend had told her she would need to leave soon. The Council advised Ms C to register for social housing from her current address. The Council says the case officer did not consider Ms C was homeless as she had an implied licence to live with her friend. There is no evidence the case officer attempted to contact the friend to confirm the details of Ms C’s living arrangements at this time.
16. The Council in its response to the Ombudsman has accepted that although it may have been the case officer’s view that Ms C was not homeless it was not clear about this and failed to progress the case to a formal decision with associated review rights. This is fault. I would also have expected the case officer to have checked with Ms C’s friend before reaching a decision on homelessness and whether a prevention was owed.
17. Ms C presented to the Council on 19 July to request accommodation. The Council noted there were no police reports to corroborate the allegation of domestic abuse and signposted Ms C to a night shelter and charitable homeless support services. The Council offered Ms C the coach fare to return to London which she declined as she felt unsafe to return. The version of the Homelessness Code of Guidance in force at the relevant time said “Housing authorities should not have a blanket approach toward domestic abuse which requires corroborative or police evidence to be provided.” I consider Council’s approach here is also likely to constitute fault.
18. Ms C contacted the Council on 8 October to say she had had to leave her friend’s property from 5 October and was sleeping in her car. Ms C also disclosed she was HIV positive and needed local accommodation to access healthcare services. I have seen no evidence this information was provided to the Council before this date. The Council provided details of a night shelter service.
19. The Council considered Ms C’s case on 9 October and accepted the full housing duty and provided interim accommodation until Ms C was rehoused in social housing.
20. Ms C’s representative made a complaint on 9 October and requested access to her records. The Council provided a response to the complaint on 7 November. The Council has accepted its complaint response did not deal with the request for information. I do not consider this fault caused Ms C a particular injustice given the timing involved. The Council also says it has now provided Ms C’s representative with details of how to make a Subject Access Request on her behalf.
21. Ms C has explained she spent several months at her friend’s property sleeping on a temporary mattress in their living room. Ms C understood she could possibly stay until September.
22. In these circumstances, it is not possible to say the Council would have found Ms C homeless and in priority need in June 2019 if it had properly considered her circumstances at the time. However, if the Council had progressed the case to a formal decision Ms C would have been able to seek a review. On balance, I also consider Ms C may have avoided spending two nights in her car if the Council had been working with her to prevent her homelessness or if she had felt more able to approach it immediately for help when she was asked to leave. It is understandable Ms C’s previous contacts with the Council had undermined her confidence in the service. This has caused Ms C avoidable distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. The Council has agreed the following action to provide a suitable remedy to Ms C:
1. write to Ms C to apologise for its failure to progress her case to a formal decision with associated review rights and provide evidence it properly considered if it owed a prevention duty in June 2019 within one month of my final decision;
2. pay Ms C £300 in recognition of her avoidable distress and uncertainty within one month of my final decision;
3. review its procedure to ensure it provides applicants with a formal outcome with review rights and can properly evidence its assessment of its prevention duties within three months of my final decision; and
4. ensure officers are aware of the relevant guidance relating to how victims of domestic violence should be treated within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation as I have found evidence of fault by the Council but consider the agreed actions above are enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman